Jump to content

Obama Administration Misled on al Qaeda


Golfboy
 Share

Recommended Posts

Wow, really?  Obama lied, mislead America, so he could be reelected?

 

Quote

 

A top foreign correspondent at the New York Times said Friday that the Obama administration deliberately downplayed al Qaeda’s strength in the run-up to the 2012 presidential election.

 

“The overall narrative that I think was being pushed to the press, and if you look back at the editorials that were done when that trove came out, was an image of bin Laden isolated, he had lost control of this group,” Rukmini Callimachi said during an event at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, referring to the 17 hand-picked documents released by the Obama administration in May of 2012.

 

Her remarks triggered the following question from Kim Dozier, a former top correspondent for the Associated Press and CBS, and current executive editor of the Cipher Brief: “Do you think that was something that was kept from the public’s view because it revealed that there had to be reams of communication going back and forth, which means U.S. intelligence, Western intelligence, was missing this?”

 

“Think back to when bin Laden was killed. It was 2011, it was right before a major campaign season. I don’t want to underplay the role that the killing of Osama bin Laden had,” said Callimachi. “But I think that that was theorized into something much bigger.”

 

“The head of the organization has been killed, and now—these are literally quotes that I would get: the organization has been ‘decimated,’ the organization is in ‘disarray,’ the organization is ‘on the run,’” she continued. “At the same time that we were preparing to pull out troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, I think that it was important to portray this as a problem that no longer existed.”

 

The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies' Thomas Joscelyn, who along with Bill Roggio has been pushing for the full release of bin Laden documents since 2012, said the administration attached a narrative to those files that al Qaeda was “on the decline” and that “there was no cohesion” among terror groups fighting from West Africa to the Middle East.

 

“That narrative that came out in 2012, we knew immediately was wrong, totally wrong, and was basically a cherry picked version of what’s going on,” he said.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No USA president going in TO STEAL oil will ever change this part of the world. We are the USA aka America so let's keep America in America. If America wants their oil we buy their oil ….. we don't want our government to kill for their oil.

 

REAGAN/BUSH could NOT defeat the oil region to steal their oil.

 

Bush/Quale could not defeat the oil region to steal their oil.

 

Clinton/Gore could not defeat the oil region to steal their oil.

 

Obama/Biden will never defeat the oil region to steal their oil.

 

Trump will never defaet the oil region to steal their oil.

 

Russia could not defeat the oil region to steal their oil.

 

Standard Oil/Exxon MObil got evicted by the oil region for trying to steal their oil.

 

38 years of the USA war machine has not and will not defeat the oil region to steal their oil.

 

USA Gov’t Created The ISIS Terror Group

http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-created-al-qaeda-and-the-isis-terror-group/5402881

 

 

 

BRING THE ALL OF TROOPS HOME NOW AND LEAVE THE BASES BEHIND IN THE INTEREST OF SOLDIER'S FAMILIES !!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/odom.php?articleid=10396

 

IRAQ - Strategic Errors of Monumental Proportions

 

What Can Be Done in Iraq?

by Lt. Gen. William E. Odom (Ret.)

 

Strategic Errors of Monumental Proportions

 

 

The role that US military forces can play in that conflict is seriously limited by all the political decisions the US government has already taken. The most fundamental decision was setting as its larger strategic purpose the stabilization of the region by building a democracy in Iraq and encouraging its spread. This, of course, was to risk destabilizing the region by starting a war.

 

Military operations must be judged by whether and how they contribute to accomplishing war aims. No clear view is possible of where we are today and where we are headed without constant focus on war aims and how they affect US interests. The interaction of interests, war aims, and military operations defines the strategic context in which we find ourselves.

 

We cannot have the slightest understanding of the likely consequences of proposed changes in our war policy without relating them to the strategic context. Here are the four major realities that define that context:

 

 Confusion about war aims and US interests. President GW Bush stated three war aims clearly and repeatedly:

 

* the destruction of Iraqi WMD;

 

* the overthrow of Saddam Hussein; and

 

* the creation of a liberal democratic Iraq.

 

The first war aim is moot because Iraq had no WMD.

 

The second was achieved by late Spring 2003. Today, people are waking up to what was obvious before the war -- the third aim has no real prospects of being achieved even in ten or twenty years, much less in the short time anticipated by the war planners.

 

Implicit in that aim was the belief that a pro-American, post-Saddam regime could be established. This too, it should now be clear, is most unlikely.

 

Finally, is it in the US interest to have launched a war in pursuit of any of these aims? And is it in the US interest to continue pursuing the third? Or is it time to redefine our aims? And, concomitantly, to redefine what constitutes victory?

 

 The war has served primarily the interests of Iran and al-Qaeda, not American interests...

 

  AGAIN ......Strategic Errors of Monumental Proportions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, RussianDisinformation said:

 

Obama killed more terrorists than Bush and Trump combined. Since you are a cyber terrorist he should have killed you liar.

But but but...

I thought he said he was bringing them to NY for trial?

 

Bet you fell for that one too

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, LaughinAtLefty said:

The Obozo regime lie? No, say it isn't so!!!!!

 

:rolleyes:

 

28 minutes ago, Z09 said:

But but but...

I thought he said he was bringing them to NY for trial?

 

Bet you fell for that one too

from the guy who fell for the bush jr/condi rice lies that got all those people killed to avenge a dirty old man.

bet you are glad you didn't die for bush. bummer about the others  ain;t it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, harryramar said:

 

from the guy who fell for the bush jr/condi rice lies that got all those people killed to avenge a dirty old man.

bet you are glad you didn't die for bush. bummer about the others  ain;t it?

Tell us...

If all these people "lied" why didn't the Democrats do anything?

Cause they lied too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Z09 said:

Tell us...

If all these people "lied" why didn't the Democrats do anything?

Cause they lied too?

tell us...

what did the bush jr crowd say about Iraq that was true?

aren't you glad you didn't die in Iraq for those things that were not true. tough shit about all those who did die, you are still here and alive so fuck them, right?

LOL

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Z09 said:

But but but...

I thought he said he was bringing them to NY for trial?

 

Bet you fell for that one too

 

What does that have to do with the fact that you are a traitor? I would love to piss on your grave after you are execute for treason. You lose again you feckless Russian troll. You pathetic Russian don't know much about American law.

 

Myth v. Fact: Trying Terror Suspects in Federal Courts | Human Rights ...

Myth: Terrorists have traditionally been tried in military commissions.

Fact: Federal civilian criminal courts have convicted more than 620 individuals on terrorism-related charges since 9/11. Military commissions have convicted only eight, three of which have been overturned completely and one partially. Federal court convictions include those resulting from investigations of terrorist acts and of criminal acts by those with an identified link to international terrorism. Federal courts have convicted many high-profile terrorists, including “Shoe Bomber” Richard Reid, Ramzi Yousef (1993 World Trade Center bombing), Faisal Shahzad (Times Square bomber), and Sulaiman Abu Ghaith (Osama bin Laden’s son-in-law) in March 2014.

Myth: Military commissions are better equipped to handle terror cases.

Fact: Federal courts have more tools to try terrorists than military commissions. Federal courts, unlike military commissions, can try suspects for offenses involving fraud, immigration, firearms, and drugs. In addition, convictions for the crime of material support before a military commission, rather than a federal court, have been overturned on appeal because these crimes have not generally been considered war crimes. While Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, Osama bin Laden’s son-in-law, was convicted of terrorism-related offenses just over a year after he was captured, the military commission trial for the alleged 9/11 perpetrators has remained mired in pre-trial hearings since May 2012.

Myth: Federal prisons cannot safely detain terror suspects.

Fact: Federal prisons hold hundreds of individuals convicted of terrorism-related offenses. None have ever escaped. According to the American Correctional Association, “Corrections and law-enforcement professionals in the United States are second to none. We want to assure all Americans that the public will be safe from harm and that the terrorists will be properly and effectively detained -- whether in Cuba or in a single facility or multiple facilities across the United States.” Guantanamo is also much more expensive than federal prisons, costing more than $10 million per prisoner annually, compared to less than $78,000 in a comparable maximum security federal prison.

Myth: Terrorism trials in federal court risk the safety of Americans.

Fact: None of the districts that have tried terrorism suspects have been attacked in response, and Guantanamo actually hinders counterterrorism efforts. In a speech to the American Constitutional Society, Attorney General Eric Holder said, “Not one of the judicial districts involved has suffered retaliatory attacks.” Rather, as John Kerry stated, “The Guantanamo detention facility impedes joint counterterrorism efforts with friends and allies.”

Myth: Terror suspects should be tried before military commissions because they do not deserve our regular courts.

Fact: Prosecuting terror suspects before military commissions makes them look like warriors rather than the criminals that they are. As Judge William Young said when sentencing Shoe Bomber Richard Reid, “You’re no warrior….You are a terrorist. A species of criminal guilty of multiple attempted murders.”

Myth: Federal courts aren’t prepared to protect classified information.

Fact: Federal courts are expert at protecting classified information. The rules for military commissions governing classified information are modeled after the federal court rules. Military commission judges have little experience applying those rules, unlike federal court judges.

Myth: All previous flaws in military commissions were corrected in the Military Commissions Act of 2009.

Fact: Military commissions still fail to meet U.S. constitutional and international law fair trial standards. While the newly-constituted military commission rules provide some needed reforms, such as prohibiting the admission of evidence obtained by cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, some serious flaws remain. For instance, military commissions:

  • Continue to permit the admission of coerced testimony obtained at the point of capture or during closely related active combat engagement.
  • Include an overbroad definition of who can be tried before military commissions, one that extends trials in this forum to juveniles and those not even engaged in hostilities.
  • Permit defendants to be tried ex-post facto for conduct not considered to constitute a war crime at the time it was committed.

Myth: Reading suspected terrorists their Miranda rights prevents authorities from gathering critical intelligence.

Fact: Miranda is an effective law enforcement tool that provides valuable information. Phil Mudd, former deputy director of the CIA's Counterterrorist Center and a senior intelligence adviser to the FBI, wrote that he “sat at hundreds of briefing tables for nine years after Sept. 11, 2001, and I can't remember a time when Miranda impeded a decision on whether to pursue an intelligence interview.” The Miranda requirement does not prevent intelligence professionals from interrogating prisoners, and recent court decisions have recognized exceptions to the Miranda requirement, including the “foreign law enforcement interrogations” exception and the “public safety” exception to Miranda that would likely apply to statements made on the battlefield.

Myth: Foreigners aren’t protected under the U.S. Constitution and therefore cannot be tried in the U.S. criminal justice system.

Fact: Our Constitution applies to citizens and foreigners alike in the U.S. criminal justice system. It is well-established in the Constitution and by Supreme Court precedent that, as James Madison said, “t does not follow, because aliens are not parties to the Constitution … they have no rights to its protection…. [A]s they owe…a temporary obedience [to the Constitution], they are entitled in return to their protection….”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...